Project Canterbury

Life of Edward Bouverie Pusey
by Henry Parry Liddon, D.D.

London: Longmans, 1894
volume four

Transcribed by The Revd R D Hacking
AD 2002








IN the Preface to the  'Case as to the Legal Force of the Judgment of the Privy Council in re Fendall v. Wilson,'  Pusey had described the attitude of the Roman Catholics towards this decision in the following terms:  'While I know that a very earnest body of Roman Catholics rejoice in all the workings of God the Holy Ghost in the Church of England (whatever they think of her), and are saddened in what weakens her who is, in God' s hands, the great bulwark against infidelity in this land, others seemed to be in an ecstasy of triumph at this victory of Satan.'

There were no doubt at that time serious internal differences which marred the apparent harmony of the Roman Catholic communion in England; whether, how–ever, their opinions with regard to the Church of England exactly corresponded with Pusey' s description may be doubted. Still, it was inevitable that the attention of Roman Catholics should be directed to this open allusion to their diverging judgments. Hence, a few weeks after the appearance of this pamphlet, Pusey received a friendly communication from Dr. Manning intimating the early appearance of a public reply to it.


MY DEAR FRIEND,                                                                                                                  Nov. 6, 1864.

In a few days Longman will send you a copy of a Pamphlet which I have addressed to you.

It contains, I fear, many things in which I cannot hope for your assent; but nothing, I trust, which can give you personally any pain. It cost me no effort to write to you, and of you, with respect and affection, in which, during all these years, I have never varied towards you.

We live in times when those who count God' s Truth more precious than all the world, ought, for that Truth' s sake, to speak out charitably but intelligibly. You will not find, I trust, any controversial spirit in what I have written. I do not believe in it: and if I knew how to say what I believe without paining those who do not believe as I do, I would never use other words.

I hope you and your family are well in health. It is so long since I have heard of them, that I do not know how to speak or ask about them.

Believe me, always,

               My dear friend,

                           Yours affectionately,

                                           H. E. MANNING.

Manning' s Pamphlet claimed to be a sketch of the true Roman Catholic view of the Church of England and its troubles. The writer denied that he belonged to either of the two classes which Pusey had mentioned; rather, according to the faith he had received, he regarded the Church of England as under the influence of the Holy Spirit, not merely like the whole human race, but more especially because, like the Dissenting bodies, it was made up in the main of baptized people who were, to a very great extent through no fault of their own, outside the true Church. In the English Church, he said, the Holy Spirit gives grace to individuals, as He did before the Church was founded;. but in saying this, no Roman Catholic would affirm that the English Church had  'the character of a Church.'  Manning allowed that any authoritative denial of any portion of the  'fragmentary truths,'  which he recognized as still existing in the Church of England was to be deplored; although Roman Catholics watched with satisfaction every change, social and political, which weakened the hold of the English Church on the country (p. 29). Far from being any bulwark against infidelity, the Church of England had floated, he maintained, with the flood of unbelief, and was itself a source of unbelief because of the truths which it rejected.

The whole tone of the pamphlet was distinctly polemical; and in spite of Newman' s question,  'Why should you answer him?'  Pusey reluctantly thought it necessary to reply. He commenced his answer in the form of a Letter to Keble, defending the English Church against Manning' s account of it; but while he was wearily arguing over the old ground to show that the Thirty-nine Articles diverged in language rather than in meaning from the decrees of the Council of Trent, he suddenly changed his plan. He determined to drop entirely the tone of an apology, and to make his answer a plea for re-union between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. He explained  his reasons for this change in a letter to Newman about twelve months later when the book had been for some weeks in circulation.


Nov. 6, 1863.

I see that my Letter has two aspects. First and originally it was a defence. I know not whether you ever saw Archbishop Manning' s Letter to myself. It denied us everything, except what in a greater degree Dissenters had too--I mean everything living and substantial and operative, except as far as God does not deny grace to any. I answered it unwillingly, but it was put upon me, and I did not like to refuse, the less because Manning (as he then was) had singled me out. My plan, in the Articles which lay down doctrine, was simple enough. It was to say that there was divergence of language (where there was) and not, I believed, of meaning. Then came Art. xxii, and the difficult class of subjects mentioned in it. In writing this, the thought came to me of making it an Eirenicon. I meant by this to point out or suggest what we could accept, if it could be made quite clear that, in accepting this, we did not accept what lay beyond it. I hoped that the Roman Church might agree to lay down that it required thus much as matter of faith, and not more. Such an authoritative explanation would be something wholly different from unauthoritative explanations, such as those of Milner. But in order to explain what we want, we ought to explain why we want it. It would be an unmeaning thing to ask that it should be defined, that nothing more was of faith touching the Invocation of Saints than what is given in the Council of Trent, as explained by Milner, without say–ing why we desire this. We should be asked, naturally,  'Why do you want us to make any new decrees? The Church does not make decrees on matters of faith, without a reason; what reason have you to give for what you ask?'  Now if as I believe, the system in regard to the Blessed Virgin is the chief hindrance to reunion, and if a declaration by authority that something which does not necessarily involve this (as the Council of Trent with Milner' s explanation) is alone of faith, would remove that chief hindrance to reunion, then an intelligible ground is given for the request.

As soon as the work of the October term of 1864 was over, he applied himself to this task of replying to Manning.


Christmas Eve, 1864.

I am writing an answer to Dr. Manning, yet one which I hope that you will not much dislike, considering that I am where I am. I have long felt that although there are some things, e. g. Indulgences, which I cannot in the least understand, our difficulties are mostly in the practical system rather than in the letter of the Council of Trent. If Rome could authenticate all which she allows individuals to say in explanation--I mean, if a Council of the Roman Church would say,  'Such and such things are not de fide,'  as well as what is de fide--the greatest difficulty in the way of the reunion of the two churches would, I think, be gone. The Council of Trent seems to me to have drawn the line as to the minimum which is to be believed: the English Articles seem to me (speaking generally), especially Art. xxii, to con–demn a maximum, as not being to be believed. So we are at cross-purposes. Only, while there is no explanation on the Roman side, what is the practical system of the Roman Church everywhere would become the practical system here, in case of the reunion of the Churches. My letter is, in fact, a reawakening of Tract XC, which, though its principles have sunk deep, is not much known by the rising generation.

Newman in reply pointed out that in his opinion Pusey' s expectation of a declaration on the part of the Roman Church as to what is not de fide was unreasonable, as limiting the future guidance of the Church in matters as yet undefined.


Jan. 4, 1865.

You indeed want the Church to decide what is de fide and what is not; but, pace tua, this seems unreasonable. It is to determine the work of all Councils till the end of time. How, e.g. was it to be expected that Perrone' s doctrine of Intention (as opposed to that of Catharinus) should be explicitly declared by St. Paul to be not de fide? No one on earth can draw the line between what is de fide and what is not, for, it would be prophesying of questions which have [not] yet turned up. All we can say is that so much actually is de fide; and then allow a large margin of doctrine, which we accept as de fide implicitly, so far forth as God by His Church shall make it known, All one can say is that, till God illuminates the Church on a point, the children of the Church are obliged, and so are at liberty, to go by their best judgment either way; e.g. St. John Damascene (?) may speak of the Holy Ghost as proceeding only from the Father, till the fuller truth is made known through the Divinely appointed channels of teaching. It seems to me unreasonable then to ask for more than liberty to hold what is (though not defined) contrary to the general belief of the faithful. You are not bound to believe that the Pope out of General Council is infallible, but I don' t see how you can exact from us a dog–matic definition that it is not a point de fide.

Pusey had hoped that more was possible than Newman would allow. He had hoped that the Roman Church as a body might be willing to decree what individual Roman writers had frequently and readily admitted.


Christ Church, Oxford [Jan. 5, 1865].

I certainly did think that in a subject which had long been before the Church, as Purgatory, the Cultus of the Blessed Virgin, Indul–gences, she might decide what is not de fide as well as what is. Of course one must always trust God for the future. But, as you know, the practical difficulty of the Church of England is much more as to things not defined to be de fide than as to the letter of the Council of Trent. But then, supposing the Church of England to be willing to accept the Council of Trent provided the acceptance of it involved no more than its words go to, how would she escape accepting all the rest, against which the chief objection lies? I mean, supposing the Council of Trent could be authoritatively so explained, as Du Pin did to Wake, how could she avoid having the whole system contained in the  'Glories of Mary'  made her system? For by virtue of the authority ascribed to the Pope (although this, I suppose, is no where settled as de fide), he would appoint Bishops and they ordain Clergy, who would teach it. And so the distinction between what is de fide and what is not would come to nothing. I cannot imagine being in the Church of Rome and then criticizing or not receiving anything proposed to me. I cannot imagine how any faith could stand it.

This correspondence revealed a serious divergence between Pusey and Newman as to what could be done. While no doubt explanations as to the limits of dogmatic teaching in the Church of Rome might tend towards reconciliation, the power of unlimited future definition which Newman acknowledged. to lie in the Church would render such negative explanation valueless for any formal action such as Pusey contemplated.

Pusey' s line of apology naturally would take two direc–tions. He would, in the first place, restate the real doctrine of the Church of England, somewhat in the manner of Tract XC. and then with a view of emphasizing his demand for the rejection of all that was not de fide, he would proceed to point out how largely the popular Romanism differed from the authorized dogmatic standards. In carrying out the former part of his task, he would inevitably be using many of the arguments of Tract XC; and just at that moment Newman sent him a letter from a correspondent who asked permission to reprint that Tract.  'I don' t wish,'  adds Newman,  'to give him the leave that he asks. Can you give me your opinion?'  The following was Pusey' s reply:--


[Dec. 29, 1864.]

If Tract XC is reprinted at all, I should like to reprint it; and it might suit well to reprint it now that I am anew reawakening people' s minds to it. I had forgotten that it was out of print. I should like to reprint it. You know that I am in the odd position of not being responsible to any one Bishop; but besides, times are so changed that none of our Bishops would feel called upon to interfere now. They are content to leave things to God' s providence, as I so wished them to do twenty years ago.

He explained the circumstances in which he wrote more fully to Mr. Copeland, who was himself engaged in preparing a history of the Oxford Movement.


Christ Church [Jan. 17, 1865].

What we want at Oxford is to be left to ourselves. The extreme Rationalists are doing their worst. They say,  'If you believe this and that, you must believe that and that.'  In other words,  'If you are  'Christians, you must be Catholics' ; so they are giving us a good crop of able young men, i. e. God overrules their unbelief to make these consistent in faith. There is rest at present from any anti-Roman or anti-Tractarian controversy, which the presence of a R. C. College or Oratory at Oxford would be sure to awaken.

Whether my Letter to J. K. in answer to Manning will reawaken that controversy, I know not. The Low Church know now that they want us; but whether that will overcome their horror of  'Popish errors,'  I know not. However, I am giving hints of terms of reunion of  'Anatolike Dutike Emetera. I think that I shall send it you to look at before it is published. The beginning is only the old story which we have told so often :--Tract XC over again, which made me ask dearest N. to let me republish Tract XC.

Newman gave Pusey leave to publish the Tract when he pleased, and Pusey sent it and Keble' s  'Letter to the Hon. Mr. Justice Coleridge on Catholic subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles'  at once to the Press, while he was writing an historical preface to be prefixed to both.


[Plymouth, Jan. 25, 1865.]

Tract XC and J. K.' s defence are in the Press.... I am writing a Preface, the object of which is to account for people' s so mis–understanding Tract XC. It runs into history; but will not interfere with yours, because I do not use any MS. documents, nor go into detail. The only points I want to make out are the promptness of dearest N.' s explanation, and of the condemnation by the Heads.... I mean to say, that had the four Tutors or the Heads waited for an explanation of the Tract, they could not have acted as they did, whatever else they might have done. I want to rehabilitate Tract XC, because an exposition of this sort, as being true, is essential to our position, and yet the obloquy on Tract XC is a grave scandal to our principles. Dearest N. has rehabilitated himself as honest; I want to show that the Judgment was precipitate.

Copeland helped Pusey greatly in the historical Preface.


Christ. Church, Oxford [Jan. 30, 1865].

What a mass of facts you have, of which I know nothing! I shall be so glad to see your History. What I am doing is very simple. I want to show why Tract XC was misunderstood at the time..., It is like an old world, long hid by a cloud, and the cloud parting....

As Tract XC was the scapegoat, I am satisfied that that interpretation of the Articles will not be thoroughly cleared till the mud is washed clean off from Tract XC. People look with suspicion upon it as on a thing which has been everywhere spoken against.

Copeland pointed out the difficulties which surrounded the historical account of the Tract, and reminded him of the correspondence between Newman and Maurice on the subject two years before.


Farnham, Feb. 5, 1865.

Great care and accuracy indeed will be needed in touching the old vexata quaestio, now that more than ever K.' s lines are realized, all

 'Round about the battle lowers

And mines are hid beneath our towers.'

We rustics often say about this time of year  'Rooks smell gunpowder,'  so I hope do you, especially as incedis per ignes, and we may all be shaken out of bed some fine morning, as by the Erith explosions!

But the historical Preface to Tract XC needed more time for preparation than the reply to Manning allowed him. It was therefore put aside to await an opportunity of more leisure. But at this time Pusey was able to do Newman a favour by means of which he relieved himself also from a serious anxiety about the proposal to build a Roman Catholic College at Oxford.

During the year 1864 Newman had purchased the site of the old Oxford Workhouse, a valuable plot of ground of about eight acres, and report said that a handsome Roman church was to be built there. Pusey wrote in great distress to Copeland as to one who saw more of Newman than he did himself and pointed out the consequence of this plan, if it was carried out.


Christ Church, Oxford [November 6, 1864].

...     From the R. C. point of view, I have marvelled at the for–bearance, that something of this kind was not done before. It is, of course, a declaration of war against the High Church party. For there are next to no Roman Catholics here. It can only be directed to win our young men. If the annihilation of the English Church is to be [the] stepping-stone for Rome to recover England, this would be tangible. It would be Monsignor Manning' s policy. Now we are happily without any controversy except with the unbelievers. The Evangelicals somehow never took root here. The antagonism to the Tractarians has ceased, because men see that we are fighting against the common foe. Controversy against  'Popery'  as [well as] Trac–tarianism is over. But a R. C. establishment (of whatever nature, for I know not what is intended) would revive all the Ultra-Protestant antagonism, necessarily. For if they are on the aggressive, people must take the defensive, and will probably take the offensive also.

Our people will be sickened as you were; and so Oxford would be again left to those who have no sympathy with the R. C.s, and who will be forced into antagonism with them. A High Church body there always will be, while the Prayer Book remains: but, of course, what–ever makes Ultra-Protestantism rampant and weakens the High Church emperils the Prayer Book. I believe. that, all over the country; the High Church is stronger than even in those outwardly flourishing days, but I dread the confusion into which Oxford would be thrown. The  'Liberals,'  those of the laymen who believe nothing, are triumphing already at the prospect. They find themselves pressed by us, and so are glad of the diversion.

As you still talk familiarly over these things with dearest N[ewman], I wish you would talk over this side of the question with him.

A fortnight later Newman writes to explain his intentions. Young Roman Catholics were beginning to go to Oxford; the land was offered to him, and his Bishop put the Oxford mission into his hands. He intended to do his best to found an Oratory at Oxford, as at Birmingham, though he did not intend to come himself. He had .no plans, but promised that he would not be a party to any measures different from those which would flow from the principles of the  'Apologia.'

In reply, Pusey repeated all the fears that he had expressed to Copeland; and Newman explained to him that his  'fellow-religionists'  were in a great fright about the admission of their sons to Oxford, and, the establish–ment of the Oratory in Oxford was a compromise between forbidding Roman Catholic students to go to Oxford and establishing a college for them. And as regards the fears of harm to the English Church from his occasional presence in Oxford, Newman adds:  'I perfectly understand that there are persons who would think that my coming (ever so little) to Oxford would tend (so far forth) to weaken the dogmatic teaching of the Church of England; but I should not agree with them.' .

When he heard that the University had been intending to buy the ground which he had secured, Newman offered, through Pusey, to sell to the University all but two acres, which would suffice for his own purpose. But a meeting of Roman Catholic Bishops on December 13 came to such an unsatisfactory decision that Newman offered to sell the whole plot of ground to the University--an offer which was accepted by the Convocation of the University on February 9, 1865.

Meanwhile Pusey continued to work at his reply to Manning. He thus reported the progress which he had made in the last birthday letter that he was able to write to Keble.


Christ Church, Oxford, St. Mark' s Day [April 25], 1865.

I have finished my printed Letter to you. It is chiefly a defence of ourselves against Manning, explaining our Articles in the old way, excepting against the large R. C. quasi-authoritative system, under the head of Art. xxii, and then speaking hopefully of ourselves, and, as we trust, our office of reuniting Christendom, following in the wake of Du Pin and Archbishop Wake. Liddon has seen it, for I wished a second eye to see what I was addressing publicly to you. He wished me to say more about the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep–tion; so I am making an Appendix, and am going to town to-morrow to examine the votes which the 500 bishops gave. There were some very remarkable opinions given against making it a dogma--especially the Archbishops of Rouen, Paris, Salzburg. All the Professors at Maynooth were against it, and the R. C. Archbishop of Dublin.

I am writing on purpose to-day to express my thankfulness for the many and great mercies which God gave us through giving you to us to-day, and my hope for their continuance.

Your affectionate and grateful,


As usual, however, new fields opened before him, and the completion of the book was again and again delayed.


St. Lawrence Dene, Ventnor, I. W., July 24 [1865].

As for my Letter to J. K., first I got immersed in the  'Pareri deli'  Episcopato Cattolico'  and read through all the answers of the Bishops to the Pope about the Immaculate Conception, and lately I have got into the last Encyclical. What a strange way they are driving on! The last result of the Dublin Review is that the Pope is personally infallible as to facts too, not connected with faith or morals, and that, however he utters his pronouncements. Bellarmine is left far behind. So his Italian government is to be matter of faith too, and that the Pope never did anything wrong to the Greeks.

The Letter was at last completed early in September, and Pusey at once wrote to ask if Newman would accept a copy of it.


Sept. 4, 1865.

At last my book is finished. I think that I said that it was meant to turn out an Eirenicon. They seem to be aweful times everywhere. Would to God we were not spending our strength, but could fight against the common foe of souls and of the faith.

But now as to sending it to you. I have not, in all these sad years, sent you anything which had any controversy in it. And in this too, though I have been reviving the mode of conciliation of Du Pin and Wake, I have had to deprecate the Ultramontanism, which, in the Dublin Review, goes beyond Bellarmine as to the Infallibility of the Pope and the large development of the system as to the Blessed Virgin. There is, of course, no declamation: it is simply historical, I believe.

But now the object of this note is to say, unless you should otherwise read it, I should not send it you. I should be sorry that you should have anything of mine from the booksellers; but still more sorry to be the occasion of your writing anything against it by bringing it under your notice.

I am going early next week to see Keble.

                 Ever yours most affectionately,


It was a pleasure to Pusey to find that Newman was willing to accept a copy of his Letter. He seems to have had every confidence that it could not give offence.


The Oratory, Birmingham, Sept. 5, 1865.

I shall be much obliged by your sending me your book. Somehow, outright controversy is more pleasant to me than such uncontroversial works as are necessarily built on assumptions, which pain me.

For myself, I don' t think I have written anything controversial for the last fourteen years. Nor have I ever, as I think, replied to any controversial notice of what I have written. Certainly I let pass without a word the various volumes which were written in answer to my Essay on Doctrinal Development, and that on the principle that truth defends itself, and falsehood refutes itself: and that, having said my say, time would decide for me, without any trouble, how far it was true, and how far not true. And I have quoted Crabbe' s line as to my purpose (though I can' t quote correctly):--

 'Leaving the case to Time, who solves all doubt,

By bringing Truth, his glorious daughter, out'

This being so, I can' t conceive I could feel it in any sense an Imperative duty to remark on anything you said in your book. I dare say there is a great deal in which I should agree. Certainly I so dislike Ward' s way of going on, that I can' t get myself to read the Dublin. But on those points I have said my say in the Apologia, and, though I can' t see the future, am likely to leave them alone. A great attempt has been made in some quarters to find (censurable) mistakes in my book, but it has altogether failed, and I consider Ward' s articles to be important attempts to put down by argument what is left safe in the domain of theological opinion.

But while I would maintain my own theological opinion, I don' t dispute [with] Ward the right of holding his, so that he does not attempt to impose them on me: nor do I dispute the right of whoso will to use devotions to the Blessed Virgin which seem to me unnatural and forced. Did authority attempt to put them down, while they do not infringe on the great Catholic verities, I think it would act, as the Bishop of London is doing, in putting down the devotional observances of the Tractarian party at St. Michael' s [Shoreditch] and elsewhere. He is tender towards free-thinkers and stern towards Romanizers.  'Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas.'  Now the Church of Rome is severe on the free-thinkers and indulgent towards devotees.

Pusey' s Letter to Keble, generally called his First Eirenicon, was, as has been said, primarily a reply to Manning' s attack upon the English Church, but also far more than a reply. It was a vindication of the claims of the English Church to be a portion of the Catholic Church in doctrine and Sacraments, and a detailed exposition of those portions of the Roman system which in Pusey' s mind compelled the continued separation between England and Rome. In the earlier part, the ground is not new: it is a vindication to a Roman Catholic of the Thirty-nine Articles which had been so often vindicated five and twenty years earlier in reply to Evangelicals. He points out the doctrinal affinities between them and the decrees of the Council of Trent, and shows that Manning' s charges against the teaching of the English Church are untrue in some cases while in others they are equally forcible against the form a teaching of the Council of Trent.

In working out this point he had -the further object of showing that the divergence between the formal teaching of the Church of England and the Church of Rome is not so wide as is commonly taught. The mass of objections against the Roman Church in the mind of an ordinary Englishman relate, Pusey points out, to that vast system as to the Blessed Virgin which to all of us has been the special  " crux" of the Roman system,'  and to the popular teaching about Purgatory and Indulgences. This teaching is not to be found, in the formal Tridentine decrees. It existed indeed, and had been strongly attacked, when those decrees were drawn up; but the Council tacitly allowed that it was not de fide by saying nothing in defence of it, in spite of the objections raised against it. This teaching was, however, now in common use by Roman priests, and put forth as certain truth in books which have the sanction of her Bishops and by writers who have been canonized. He proved this point by lengthy quotations of extreme statements on these subjects from well-known writers who are held in high esteem in the Roman communion. The quotations must needs have been very distressing to many Roman Catholics; they went beyond the decrees of the Council of Trent, but no restriction or prohibition had been issued with regard to them, and popularly they were part of the formal teaching of the Roman Church.

Pusey thought that it would be a great advance towards reunion if such statements were authoritatively asserted to be not de fide, and not necessarily to be taken into account in discussions about reunion. He alleged as a precedent for such explanations the overtures which Du Pin and others made to Archbishop Wake in the eighteenth century, when he proposed a union between the English and Gallican Churches. Du Pin' s  'whole plan seems to be an anticipation of our dear friend' s Tract XC.'  Then he alluded to the hopes of reunion entertained in later years by  'the profound and pious Möhler,'  on the basis of the recog–nition by each side of its own great mistakes, and to the hopes which the Ultramontane Count De Maistre enter–tained for the Church of England in the time of her profoundest lethargy. After unsparingly pointing out her faults, De Maistre still said of her,  'Cependant elle est très précieuse sous d' autres aspects, et peut être considérée comme une de ces intermèdes chimiques, capable d' approcher des élémens inassociables de leur nature.'

 'And now God seems again to be awakening the yearning to be visibly one, and He Who alone, the Author of Peace and the Lover of Concord, must have put it into men' s minds to pray for the unity of Christendom, will in His time, we trust, fulfil the prayer which He Himself has taught... . A plan which should embrace the Greek Church also would facilitate what English Catholics most desire--authoritative explanations. Cardinal Wiseman, in his memorable letter to Lord Shrewsbury, laid down as a principle,  'We must explain to the utmost' .  The Church of England and the Council of Trent have long seemed to me at cross purposes. In some cases, at least, the Council of Trent proposed the minimum, of [sic] which it would accept, but left a maximum, far beyond the letter of the Council, to be thereafter, as it was before, the practical system of the Church. The Church of England in her Articles protested against that maximum, the practical system which she saw around her; but, in many cases, she laid down no doctrine at all on the subject upon which she protested. She made negative statements to show against what she protested, but set down no positive statement to explain what, on the same subject, she accepted… It may be that the Church of England might offer such explanations of the Thirty-nine Articles as the Roman and Greek Churches would accept, such as are suggested by Bossuet, or by the Commonitorium of Du Pin; or, according to the precedent of the Council of Florence, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Council of Trent (which was so largely directed against errors of Luther) might pass away and be merged in the Eighth General Council of the once-more united Christendom' .

The Letter concludes with a glowing picture of the dangers through which the Church of England has kept the Faith of her present vigorous life, and the manifold proofs of the  'organic working of God the Holy Ghost in her.'  It is not, he maintained in opposition to Archbishop Manning' s statement, a question of grace acting only in individual souls; it is the operation of God the Holy Ghost upon the Church as a whole. The pages in which this is worked out are specially valuable, but do not admit of condensation. They are a stirring apology for the English Church, combining a loyal and affectionate review of her present condition with a statement of his hopes for the work which it may be the Will of God to accomplish through her in the future.

The Eirenicon was hardly out of Pusey' s hands when he unexpectedly met Newman at Keble' s house at Hursley. It must have seemed to Pusey as an omen that his hopes of reunion between the Church of England and the Church of Rome would be realized.

He writes to his brother:--


[Sept. 14, 1865.]

Strangely, I met J. H. N. at dear J. K.' s this week on my visit on my return from residence at Oxford. He is deeply lined. It is the first time I have seen him since he came to me at Tenby, when I was ill [in 1846]. We talked comfortably about past, present, future.

Newman has given a full account of the meeting in the following letter to the late Sir John Coleridge, which was published in Keble' s Memoirs.


Rednall, Sep. 17, 1868.

It was remarkable, certainly, that three friends--he, Dr. Pusey, and myself--who had been so intimately united for so many years, and then for so many years had been separated, at least one of them from the other two, should meet together just once again; and, for the first and last time, dine together, simply by themselves. And the more remarkable, because not only by chance they met all three together, but there were positive chances against their meeting.

Keble had wished me to come to him, but the illness of his wife, which took them to Bournemouth, obliged him to put me off. On their return to Hursley I wrote to him on the subject of my visit, and fixed a day for it. Afterwards, hearing from Pusey that he, too, was going to Hursley on the very day I had named, I wrote to Keble to put off my visit. I told him, as I think, my reason. I had not seen either of them for twenty years, and to see both of them at once would be more, I feared, than I could bear. Accordingly, I told him I should go from Birmingham to friends in the Isle of Wight, in the first place, and thence some day go over to Hursley. This was on September 12, 1865. But when I had got into the Birmingham train for Reading, I felt it was like cowardice to shrink from the meeting, and I changed my mind again. In spite of my having put off my visit to him, I slept at Southampton, and made my appearance at Hursley next morning without being expected. Keble was at his door speaking to a friend. He did not know me, and asked my name. What was more wonderful, since I had purposely come to his house, I did not know him, and I feared to ask who it was. I gave him my card without speaking. When at length we found out each other, he said, with that tender flurry of manner which I recollected so well, that his wife had been seized with an attack of her complaint that morning, and that he could not receive me as he should have wished to do, nor, indeed, had he expected me;  'for Pusey,'  he whispered,  'is in the house, as you are aware.'

Then he brought me into his study and embraced me most affec–tionately, and said he would go and prepare Pusey, and send him to me.

I think I got there in the forenoon, and remained with him four or five hours, dining at one or two. He was in and out of the room all the time I was with him, attending on his wife, and I was left with Pusey. I recollect very little of the conversation that passed at dinner. Pusey was full of the question of the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, and Keble expressed his joy that it was a common cause, in which I could not substantially differ from them; and he caught at such words of mine as seemed to show agreement. Mr. Gladstone' s rejection at Oxford was talked of, and I said that I really thought that had I been still a member of the University I must have voted against him, because he was giving up the Irish Establishment. On this, Keble gave me one of his remarkable looks, so earnest and so sweet, came close to me, and whispered in my ear (I cannot recollect the exact words, but I took them to be),  'And is not that just?'  It left the impression on my mind that he had no great sympathy with the Establishment in Ireland as an Establishment, and was favourable to the Church of the Irish.

Just before my time for going Pusey went to read the Evening Service in church, and I was left in the open air with Keble himself.... We walked a little way, and stood looking in silence at the church and churchyard, so beautiful and calm. Then he began to converse with more than his old tone of intimacy, as if we had never beer parted, and Soon I was obliged to go..

He wrote me many notes about this time; in one of them he mad a reference to the lines in Macbeth

 'When shall we three meet again?

When the hurly-burly' s done. -

When the battle 's lost and won.

But the newspapers gave their own account of the meeting, to Pusey' s great annoyance.


Christ Church, Oxford, Oct 9, 1865.

I much regret having to obtrude upon the public my own private feelings, but the statement which you copied from some local paper (inaccurate in every particular, except that I spent some happy hours with my friend Dr. Newman) is so intensely painful that I cannot help myself. The statement is, that Dr. N. and myself were  'reconciled after twenty years.'  The deep love between us, which now dates back for above forty years, has never been in the least overshadowed. His leaving us was one of the deep sorrows of my life; but it involved separation of place, not diminution of affection.

Pusey saw good reasons for attempting to get as wide a hearing as possible for his plan of reunion. Rumours of an approaching Council at Rome seemed to suggest that the favourable moment for decisive action had arrived. He wrote hopefully about it to Mr. Gladstone:--


[Sept. 19, 1865.J

The Bishop of Brechin wished me to have it translated into French and German, which I am about to have done so soon as I find the translators. We want to have a hearing with the non-extreme party before the Synod at Rome next year. I read through the correspondence with the Pope published in the  'Pareri dell'  Episcopato Cattolico'  on the Immaculate Conception, There seemed to be many moderate men then: but, alas! the Episcopal life is short, and fifteen years may have removed a good many to their rest. My hope, however, is not in many, but that it is God the Holy Ghost, the Author of Peace and Lover of Concord, Who is putting into people' s hearts to wish to be one.      

With the same purpose a journey to France was pro–jected to bring the Eirenicon under the notice of the French Bishops.


[Early in October, 1865.]

I think I shall try to present my book myself to some French Bishops. Alas! what a short-lived generation the Episcopate is. I find that the Archbishop of Rouen, who replied to the Encyclical, is paralytic, at least so I was told, at Rouen. I have a wish to see some Bishops myself, and I think I shall try to use this short interval before the Oxford term to see whom I can. I want to know what they would think of giving us the same terms as Bossuet or Cardinal de Noailles would.

He accordingly started for France as soon as he could get away after reading his Paper at the Norwich Church Congress. He left Poole for Cherbourg on Wednesday, October 11, and returned to England on October 11, having crowded no little work into those ten days. He wrote an account of his earliest visits to his son Philip from Paris.


Paris, Monday [Oct. 16, 1865].

          So much time was lost by not coming on Monday… and subse–quently by the difficulty of getting to the Bishop of Coutances, whom I thought likely to be one of the most favourable, that I am come here thus late, having followed the Bishop from Coutances to Avranches, and then to St. Michel. He was most kind, and gave me his blessing. Then the Bishop of Rennes being out, I saw his vicar, who spoke kindly. From the Bishop of La Val I got a rebuff, so I did not try Le Mans. Yesterday, being Sunday, I saw the Bishop of Chartres for a short time. He was kind but not encouraging. It was near service time, so I did not see much of him. To-clay I went with my letter to the Archbishop of Paris who, wisely, never allows an answer to be waited for; so I must wait at home to-morrow to see whether there is any appointment.

[Tuesday.] I am staying at home, partly for an answer from the Archbishop, to know whether I am to see him. I think that very likely I may not. For, since the rule here is to tell the Archbishop before-hand why one wishes to see him, he may think that I have told him all I have to say, and not thinking it practicable, may send me an answer through some chaplain.

He wrote a full account of his journey to Bishop Forbes as soon as he reached home, on the following Friday.


   MY DEAREST FRIEND,                                                                                             [October 20, 1865]

The first stone is, I trust, laid on which the two Churches may be again united--when God wills and when human wills obey. I had two most interesting audiences with the Archbishop of Paris, who seemed to be of a very far-sighted, moderate, and comprehensive mind. He seemed entirely to recognize our position, thought that there were faults on both sides in [the] Reformation, accused no one. The upshot was that he thought that there might be union on the basis of the Council of Trent, but explained. The custom at Paris is that one has to explain beforehand why one wishes to see the Archbishop. So I wrote him a letter (with which he was evidently well satisfied, and of which he spoke kindly), saying what we wished--that our difficulties lay rather in things outside of the Council of Trent than in its letter, and gave as an instance the system of the most holy Mother of God, and asked whether it could not be laid down that nothing was of faith except what the Council of Trent declared, that it was good and useful to, &c. He said that the formulizing of a new article of faith was a very grave matter, but he saw no reason why it should not be. He thought, on the one hand, that there must be a reaction after the death of the present Pope; on the other, he thought that the English nation would be more ready to come to terms when it had had some reverses. I asked him definitely at the end of the first interview,  'Do you, then, think that it would be a practical matter to work for--the reunion of the Churches on the basis of the Council of Trent explained?'  He said,  'Yes.'  I told him that I had been advised to have my book translated into French. He said,  'Do; the subject ought to be con–sidered.'  He anticipated that there might be some stir, but said that if there was he would defend it. If I understood him right, he thought it might perhaps be put into the Index, but he did not think that a great evil. I was not always certain of his French, for my hearing is not as good as it was; but of the main outline I am certain. He said that the conciliators were always successful in the end, that people did not wish for extremes. He spoke with great admiration of the English character, said that the Church: stood in need of the Anglo-Saxons, that the French were impetuous and went full tilt at their object; but that the English would always beat them-- for they kept their end in view, and then moved or did not move, just when and how they saw  that it would advance their end. I first called on him on Tuesday. On his saying that he had watched our Movement for twenty years with great interest, and asking me the title of my book, that he might send for it, I took it him; and yesterday he told me that he had parcouru it, but that he meant to study it, that he would write me his opinion of it. He had before proposed to me a continued corre–spondence. He said that dear J. H. N. would be the person to frame the terms of conciliation' . Evidently he has the thing at heart.

Bishop Maret, upon whom I called, was out; but after this hopeful interview with the Archbishop I did not try any more. I had before been received most kindly by the Bishop of Coutances, who left an official meal to see me. He said, to my surprise, that he thought that the Pope would have great difficulty in conceding in Europe the Com–munion in both kinds, or the marriage of the clergy. It was his own remark. I had taken it for granted, that, since they were matters of discipline, there would be none, and so had not mentioned it. The Bishop of Rennes was giving a Retreat: I saw his vicar-general, who was also very kind, and advised that we should send our propositions to Rome, that they would be considered by able theologians, and that, even if they missed, no harm would be done. Then I saw the Bishop of La Val, having meant to go round by Le Mans, Angers, Orleans, Blois to Paris. But La Val was so discouraging that I thought I would not go any more to unknown Bishops. La Val' s line was that I was kept back by mere secular grounds: I answered,  'God alone knows the heart, Monsignore' ; to which he said that there were very few Gallicans in France, that he had never been one. So I went to Chartres. He [the Bishop] was very kind, but still had the same idea, that submission was the only line: but as he was going to Church, I could not say as much as I wished; and I could not say so much on my side to those Bishops for fear of wounding them. I went to the Cathedral at Chartres for the Evening Service, and there, while service was being chanted, I observed little children being taught to kneel before and kiss something which I did not see. Peasants went up to it and knelt and prayed before it. I looked afterwards and found that it was a handsomely-dressed Madonna with brilliant glass eyes. At Rouen I saw a whole range of tablets (double) the whole length of the church:  'I called upon Mary and she heard me.'

The Archbishop [of Paris] was surprised and pleased when I told him that we acknowledged the Primacy. He owned that the relations to Rome involved in the Supremacy were very different from what they were--instanced the pallium, which was not sent at first--that Bishops at first were confirmed by their Metropolitans only (just as we think), &c. I said that the Supremacy touched us only in its consequences. He asked  'What?'  I:  'If the Pope appoint our Bishops, they our Clergy, then we have the whole practical system taught us and our people.'  He:  'A Concordat might be come to, though with difficulty, by which the Bishops might be elected by the other Bishops, or in other ways, or nominated by the Queen,  " quoique Protestante.”'  He acknowledged our Succession and the grace of our Sacraments. I can hardly be mistaken in thinking that he acknowledged that we are a branch of the true Church, enté sur le tronc, qui est Jesus Christ, and that we had the sève, since we had life. Certainly I heard nothing to lead me to think that he was speaking of this as our view of the case, and he seemed to me to be speaking of his own belief about us. There was not a word in the two hours expressing any wish about my joining them: but the whole was encouraging in the plan of working for reunion. He said that the book struck him as very conscientiously written, that he was glad that I had so worked out the part of the Immaculate Conception, that it was evidently a chose qui vous touche. When I spoke of the first stone being laid, I meant the fact that the Archbishop of Paris is so thoroughly interested in it.

Now for a little question of detail. Parker raised the question to-day whether it would not be better to give all the extracts from the  'Pareri'  in the originals. As far as I recollect, those which are not French are Latin, except one Italian and one Spanish. Parker thought it would look more authentic. Of course French. priests could read Latin, but this would make a difference between the German and French translations. The Germans cannot read French. And one should miss the French laity. The Archbishop of Paris said that effective movements came from below. What say you?

                        Your most affectionate,

                                                          E. B. P.

I quite agree as to dropping all allusion to Manning.

On his return to England, Pusey learnt the manner in which his book had been received at home. No other work that he ever issued had been welcomed with so much general favour in the Church of England. Letters of hearty approval poured in upon him. An old friend, who had been somewhat alienated from Pusey of late, wrote as follows:--


Crayke, Oct. 10, 1865.

I believe a week or ten days may have passed since I had the great pleasure of receiving  'from the Author'  a copy of the  'Truth and Office of the English Church.'  It would, however, have been im–possible for me to write a mere acknowledgment of what the post had brought me till I had read it. Two other copies had been ordered before yours came; and I have only delayed, till the intervals, of daily duties allowed me to read through, what I never have willingly laid clown since I first opened it. Thanks, my dear Pusey, a thousand thanks, for the instruction, the comfort, the uplifting of heart and mind, which have attended me throughout the perusal of this admir–able volume! I know not how to select where all is so good, so close to the point, so unredundant to coin, in your own way, an Anglo-Saxon compound! But, what is most of all full of hope and comfort, it seems to me so wonderfully to combine, what none surely hereafter can question, such hearty love and loyalty to the  'English Church,'  and such a firm trust in the Providential purposes, for which we humbly believe she is still preserved among us, with the utmost scope for those Catholic aspirations after Reunion, which, we will not doubt, are also for the wisest and most beneficial reasons and objects reviving in the present age of the Church, and, if sustained with patience by wise and faithful men, must in the end bear fruit, and restore some of those things that are fallen. I have no doubt you will live, D.V., to see some reward for your excellent labour in this--and perhaps even greater than you have seen before.

Two English Bishops also sent their warm expressions of approval.


Palace, Salisbury, Oct. 10, 1865.

Most heartily do I thank you for the copy of the  'Eirenicon.'  I am always deeply touched by your kind thought of me--but more than this. Having read it, I can thank you for it as God' s good gift to our Church in our present distress. Both Churches, viz, the Roman and English, are in practice far below their fixed standards; but what  every one must, I think, feel after reading your book is that we are by God' s mercy emerging from the low atmosphere of our past practical system, and that Rome seems to be more and more substituting the evils of her practical system for the higher teaching of her               Canons.


Clifton, Bristol, Nov., 1865.

Again let me thank you for your valuable, your truly valuable and timely volume. I have read very attentively a great deal of it.

I must be honest--so I won' t say that former fears as to the possibility of union are yet wholly removed. But this I can honestly say, that your book has completely prevented me ever throwing obstacle or opposition in the way of a union between Churches. At present, then, thanks to your Christian learning, I stand  'at gaze' --fears still, but some nascent hopes in my heart.

With all kindest regards,

Yours thankfully and affectionately,

                                  C. J. GLOUC. AND BRISTOL.

At first every opinion was favourable.  'I do not hear of any expression of disapprobation,'  Pusey writes,'  even among those who do not sympathize with it.'  But Newman' s silence troubled him. At last, at the end of a month, a letter from W. G. Ward gave him an Opportunity of writing in the hope of drawing some answer from Newman.


Christ Church, Oxford, Oct. 30 [1865].

I never was more at a loss than as to the probable reception of this book. But the idea of a reunion on the basis of the Council of Trent seems to be fairly launched; though, as you will have seen, my own position is rather not to object than to receive [sic]. I mean, e.g., that I believe in some putrefying dealings of God after death, rather than have any definite belief about Purgatory. However, the book does seem to be allowed of or received in quarters where I did not expect it. I believe that God the Holy Ghost could alone have put into people' s hearts to pray for reunion; and so that He will bring about what He teaches to pray for. And I hope that this book may be a help.

Ward is going, he tells me, to write strongly against it. He calls it an  'attack.'  But unless one states our difficulties, they cannot be met; and I have stated them only historically. Ward tells me,  'I hear from undoubted authority that he [you--I of course have not named you] is quite earnest on the same side [as Ward], viz, that your book is not really an  'Eirenicon,'  but peculiarly the reverse.'  I hope this is not so. There are so many who could not conceive themselves separated for half an hour, of their own will, from the Church of St. Augustine and the Fourth Century, whose whole intellect would go along with it. Why should there be irremediable difficulty now?

Newman' s answer was a great disappointment. He seemed to ignore the fact that Pusey had not recklessly quoted extreme Roman statements; but that he had taken, as the basis of his hopes of reunion, a supposed willingness on the part of the Church of Rome to dissociate herself from such teaching as was clearly not in accordance with her authorized dogmatic standards. If he had felt himself bound to give instances of that teaching, it had been only with the hope that they might be disavowed. Not unnaturally, however, his intentions in making the quota–tions had been misunderstood.


The Oratory, Birmingham, Oct. 31, 1865.

It is true, too true, that your book disappointed me. It does seem to me that  'Irenicon'  is a misnomer; and that it is calculated to make most Catholics very angry-- and that because they will consider it rhetorical and unfair.

How is it fair to throw together Suarez, St. Bernardine, Eadmer and Faber? As to Faber, I never read his books; I never  'heard of the names of De Montfort and Oswald. Thus a person, like myself, may be in authority and place, and know nothing at all of such extrava–gances as these writers put out. I venture to say the majority of Catholics in England know nothing of them. They do not colour our body. They are the opinions of a set of people--and not of even them permanently. A young man or woman takes them up, and abandons them in a few years. The simple question is, How far ought they to be censured? Such extravagances are often censured by authority. I recollect hearing, more than twenty years ago, instances of books about the B. V. M. which Pope Gregory XVI had censured. I think I am right in saying that very superstition about our Lady' s presence in the Holy Eucharist has been censured--I think Rogers told me this in 1841, writing from Rome. Nor is Cornelius a Lapide implicated in it--he says, not that the Blessed Virgin is present in the Holy Sacrament, but that, since she was our Lord' s Mother, what was once her flesh, being now His, is there. It is no longer hers when He appropriated it. Moreover, he says this, commenting verse by verse on a passage of Scripture commonly interpreted of her, and thus (with various success, as all commentators are wont) making something out of each verse, as it comes, to the purpose. He is not propounding a doctrine, but interpreting a chapter.

Then again, I thought no one but V.-C. Wynter would confuse Intercession with Invocation. Suarez speaks of Intercession. I have tried to find your passage of him, with doubtful success--but I cannot believe that he enunciates the proposition without there being some explanation of it,  'No one is saved who is not devout to Mary.'  But it may be quite true, nevertheless, that Mary' s intercession is a neces–sary part of the economy of Redemption, just as Eve co-operated in Adam' s fall. It is in this point of view that St. Irenaeus calls her Advocate--whatever the Greek word was in his text. As to Eadmer or St. Bernardine, of course where the religion was established throughout a people, and Hail Marys were said every hour, for a man to reject such a devotion would be an act so grave, especially if he still kept the faith (which, of course, such writers supposed, for devotion, not faith, was the need of their day), that I think it would be something like rising up against his own means of salvation. And if you cannot put Suarez, a theologian, in the same boat with Italian preachers and spiritual writers, much less is Faber to be taken as his interpreter. Suarez teaches dogma, and dogma is fixed. St. Bernardine is devo–tional, and devotion is free.

Then, as to these excesses, so there are excesses in statements of the doctrine of Eternal Punishment. I don' t suppose either of us would think it fair or sober in a Westminster Review to quote St. Ambrose or St. Hilary on Eternal Punishment, add to their passages quotations from the Puritans, Wesleyans, from Dr. Cumming or Mr. Spurgeon (or say from St. Alfonso or any Italian preacher), and to argue from the vulgarities or profanities of such Protestant preachers, against the awful doctrine itself.     

An Irenicon smoothes difficulties: I am sure people will think that you increase them. And, forgive me if I do not recollect what you have exactly said, but I do not think you have said definitely what you ask as a condition of union, in respect to the cultus of the Blessed Virgin. This would be something practical. Do you wish us to deny her Intercession? or her Invocation? or the forms of devotion? or what? Had this been clearly done, people would have thought you practical--but forgive me if I say that your pages read like a de–clamation.

If I am not mistaken, you gave this reason last February, why you wished me not to come to Oxford ,that it would cause a renewal of the attacks on our doctrines--yet you are doing the very thing yourself. And you said that since my day, those who agreed with you in Oxford had ceased to attack Rome, and this was a characteristic mark of the difference in the Oxford party when I belonged to it, and now. Yet this is what people are saying against your book, viz, that it is an attack. The Guardian of last week says, a propos of what you profess to bring out in your pages on the cultus of the B. V. M. :  'It is language which, after having often heard it, we still can only hear with horror.'  Is this the effect which an Irenicon ought to produce on the mind of a reader? What can the Record or an Exeter Hall Tract do more than excite horror?

I will not go on to other subjects. Bear with me, because you have asked me: and I should have to answer for it, if I did not speak out.

Ever yours most affectionately,

                       JOHN H. NEWMAN

If Newman viewed Pusey' s argument in this way, it was not to be supposed that less friendly Roman critics would be won by the book. But Pusey' s immediate concern was to clear himself from the charge of speaking peace with his lips when he had war in his heart. It was a charge repeatedly brought against him throughout the whole con–troversy.


Nov. 2 [1865].

Kindest thanks for your letter. I had no idea of attacking anything. I thought that I had avoided everything like declamation. I do not recollect using a single epithet, or anything but a statement of what I thought important facts. I meant merely to put out what are our difficulties. I did not, as a mere presbyter, wish to put down formally what I thought should be the formula of union, nor had I any idea of wishing to interfere with others'  devotion, or that anything should be condemned. What I wanted, I thought I had explained at the begin–ning of p. 100, 1, that that should be declared to be alone de fide which the Council of Trent had laid down on the subject of Invocation. I mean that if the explanation of Milner, which I quoted in p. 100, were laid down authoritatively, so that all besides should be left as pious opinion, an immense step would be gained.

I certainly meant to put down nothing except what I thought was taught by writers of weight. In St. Bernadine and Eadmer (quoted by Liguori, &c., as St. Anselm) I took, as I thought, favourite authorities in St. Liguori (Glories of Mary), the Month of Mary, &c. Suarez also I took from Liguori. In fact, I thought that I had so far only put together what I found together in a favourite book of one canonized.

Faber I took as being, I thought, one of the most favourite books (to judge from the sale) of the present day, and, in regard to the Holy Eucharist, he cites St. Ignatius.

I thought  'There it is; if any of it is disowned, it is a gain.'  I thought that everything was published under authority, so that nothing could be likened to the ravings of Spurgeon, who represents nobody but himself, and belongs to himself and to nobody [else].

I thought that none of the system of the B. V. had been de fide, and this is what I wished to be said by your authorities indirectly. I did not want you to deny her Intercession (which of course I never doubt, or indeed that of any of the Saints),  'or her Invocation or the forms of devotion.'  It would he simple impertinence in us to prescribe terms to you. We have only to look to ourselves. The character of an Italian or Spaniard is different from that of an Englishman or German. But, after the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception had been so long a pious opinion, it has been declared to be de fide, and many bishops said that it was so held among their people. So, I thought, and much more, might any of those points which I set down, because there would be no counter-tradition about them, whereas, on account of the doctrine of the transmission of original sin, there was a good deal, I thought, on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Forgive me, the last thing which I should wish to do would be to dispute with you. I only want to explain what I meant. The Pareri showed me that a good many of your bishops had a tender feeling towards those not in their communion, and thought of the bearings of fresh Articles of Faith upon them. So then, in view of the Synod of next year, I was not sorry, since I wrote at all, to say what are our difficulties, lest any of them should be made matters of faith too. But then too I wished to show that our difficulties lay outside the Council of Trent, and, as I thought, outside what is de fide (the Immaculate Conception is a perplexity), and so I thought it no attack, since I was mostly speaking of things not de fide, as I believed, but which, as things stand, individuals of us, if we joined the Roman Church, must receive.

Well, I hope the explanation is not worse than the book. It is a great sorrow to me that you should think the book an attack.

Newman' s reply is somewhat more sympathetic than his last letter.


The Oratory, Birmingham, Nov. 3, 1865.

I think I quite gathered from your book what you bring out so clearly in your note of this morning.

My great anxiety is, that I fear the substantial framework of it will not be taken in by the mass of readers, but they will go off upon those other portions of it which are so much more easy to understand.

If I am led to publish anything (of which I have no present intention) I should treat the book simply as an Irenicon, as you wish.

Pusey could not be content without more fully explaining why his Eirenicon was bound, in some portions at least, to have the appearance of an attack.


Nov. 6, 1865.

If parts of a family are at variance, the fault must be either wholly on the one side or on the other, or divided. The more I smooth down difficulties, the more I should leave our position as unreal, unless there were something behind. A defence, of necessity, involves some fault on the other side. But I hoped that it was no real attack so long as it did not relate to matters declared to be of faith. At the same time, it is a real practical subject. I have said more than once that I cannot conceive how any faith could stand the leaving one system which it had once thought Divine, and criticizing anything in the system to which it had submitted as being alone Divine. I felt that had anything driven me from the Church of England, I must have and should have submitted myself to the whole practical system, such as it is taught in the book with which we are most familiar, Liguori. A lady to whom I said something of this sort appealed--now many years ago--to you; she wished to join the Church of Rome, seeing that she could receive the Council of Trent and the Creed of Pius IV. I said that she ought not to join it unless she could receive the practical system as taught by Liguori. She sent me your answer, in which you said,  'Dr. P. is quite right; a person ought not'  (I forget the exact words, but in whatever way you would express joining the Church of Rome)  'unless he can receive the system taught by Liguori.'  You said to me twenty years ago,  'I do not go as a reformer.'  True; one could only go as a little child, leaving behind everything which one had been taught. While then I approximated, wherein I could, to the Roman system, it seemed to me both honest and the only way not to mislead, to state what to my mind were the real difficulties. Others may dwell on the Supremacy. To me and to all of  us the Supremacy, as I said to the Archbishop of Paris, would be indifferent but for its consequences. On his asking  'What?'  I said that the appointment of our Bishops from Rome involved the appointment of all our teachers, and consequently the authorized teaching of that which was just our difficulty.

If you could read through what I wrote, you will have seen another motive in all that which I wrote a bout the system as to the Blessed Virgin. It seemed to me that, on the principles and with the object upon which and with which the Immaculate Conception was made matter of faith, any other popular belief might be made matter of faith. Here was already a fresh difficulty in the way of the reunion of the Eastern Church as well as of our own. Many of your Bishops felt this: I hoped the more that if they thought that it would be a diffi–culty to the English Church, they might the less decree anything in the Synod of next year.

One more thing must have gleamed through, that the Roman Church had its perils as well as we have, and that perhaps we might help in averting those perils.

All this, my dearest N., is not mere controversy.

I am, as you see, in this dilemma: if I do not state difficulties, I seem unreal; if I state them, I seem controversial.

Keble was as anxious as Pusey with regard to the effect that the Eirenicon might have on Pusey' s relations with Newman.


Nov. 8, 1865.

I believe you have been in communication with dear J. H. N. since your book came out. He wrote to me, but he has not said I might send you his letter, and perhaps it is as well not, for it vexed me in two ways: (1) he seemed to me to take a very unpleasing view of the book, wondering how it could call itself an eireikon, and almost out of temper with it: and (2) it disappointed me after I had been led by your letter to hope that the moderate R. C.' s would take it as it is meant and sympathize with it. I wrote to him pointing out that in fact his own statement, that  'Suarez, &c. was not to be charged with maintaining the Invocation of S. Mary as essential because they taught her Intercession to be so,'  was in fact an instance of difference between formal and popular R. C. doctrine as taught by you: and that, so far he was conceding your ground for hoping that something might be one day said or done to moderate the excessive worship of her. Indeed he himself said that in the time of Greg. XVI several books were condemned in that sense. And altogether his sayings in this very letter seem to me to confirm yours, to the effect that while born R. C.' s are hot to be held committed to all these extreme ideas, it will be a hard fight for any convert who wishes to keep clear of them. Poor dear fellow, I do hope he will not waver in his friendship for you. He said he had no thought of writing on this matter. I have not told him a word of your good news from France, supposing it strictly confidential. It will be a great pleasure when you can spare me the letter which gave dear Bp. Forbes such comfort. God be thanked for all.

As soon as the Eirenicon was published, Pusey wrote to Keble about the plan of reprinting Tract XC.


[About Oct. 21, 1865.]

Now that this work is done, I think that it would be a good opportunity for [re]publishing Tract XC. My explanation of the Articles in my Letter to you, is Tract XC in substance over again. People are now prepared for it. I think that my historical Preface will remove a good deal of prejudice and your Letter to J. C. still more. Liddon agrees with me, that the sort of slur on Tract XC is a great hindrance to the Catholic interpretation of the Articles.

Have you anything to alter in that Letter to J. C.? For, since it was not published, it is fair to omit or alter anything.

Keble was willing to leave the matter entirely in Pusey' s hands.


Heather Cliff, Bournemouth, Nov. 8, 1865.

I cannot see how to adapt that poor Pamphlet of mine to the present improved state of things without really writing it anew. If it is worth reprinting at all, it must be merely as a document to illustrate our condition and proceedings in that emergency. As at present advised, I would leave it at your service to come out whole or in part.

Before the publication of the Tract, Pusey explained to Newman that the Preface was only historical, and that he had purposely not submitted it to him in order to  'leave him freer.'


Nov. 13, 1865.

The failure of the Eirenicon in your eyes makes me anxious about my Preface to Tract XC. I had made it simply defensive of Tract XC on the historical side. In so doing, I have quoted largely from your letter to Jelf, because it was the explanation which the Heads ought to have waited for. I have, of course, not cited any expressions which you have since retracted. I have sent it to Copeland, asking him whether there is anything which he thinks you would not like.... I would ask to send it to you, only I thought that it would leave you freer that you should not have seen it, and that Copeland' s seeing it would be the same.

Newman was very glad that Pusey should have taken this course.


The Oratory, Birmingham, Nov. 14, 1865.

I feel very much your kindness in respect to Tract XC. Of course the historical is its weak side, or rather it does not attempt it; and it is the most important side, for it is the question of the matter of fact. I recollect Keble suggesting something to be written on it at the time: but nothing was done--because I had promised to keep silence about the Tract. It is impossible that I can dislike anything you do about it: my own view of it has been expressed so clearly, that, though your own differed ever so much, there could be no mistake--but besides, I am far more than safe in your hands. And after all, I have nothing to do with the Tract now.

The change in public opinion since 1841 was so great, that the republished Tract was received without any dis–favour. By March, the first edition of 3,000 was sold. There had been some criticism of the details of the history, but Pusey was satisfied.


Christ Church, Oxford [Lent, 1866].

The result of this history as to Tract XC, rather shows that it is not premature to publish all. For Hawkins alone of the Heads bristled up a little, and his bristles are gone down. Plumptre was quite satisfied. Indeed it shows the marvellous change, that one can publish Tract XC, and all its history, without the slightest commotion. Only we were then in the prime of life, younger than our persecutors; now, I am an old man.

But the correspondence about the Eirenicon was still going on. Newman, as Keble said, seemed to allow that the natural course  'for any convert to Romanism would be to accept their whole popular system; only he wished to distinguish the Roman practical system which he accepted from the local colouring of that system which he rejected.


The Oratory, Birmingham, Nov. 10, 1865.

It is quite true that I said, and I should say still, that it is a mere doctrinaire view to enter a Church without taking up its practical system--and that, as represented by its popular catechisms and books of devotion. In this sense I hold by  'the system'  of St. Alfonso Liguori. But I never meant to say that therefore in all matters of detail I hold by him. I ever use his moral theology, but I do not hold by his doctrine of equivocation, nor is it held here in England. I hold by his numerous spiritual books, but I do not accept and follow views which he expresses about the Blessed Virgin; and even though I looked upon him as a dogmatic authority, which he is not, I should note therefore feel bound, unless I thought right, to take his anti–-Augustinian doctrine of Predestination. The practical  'system'  remains quite distinct from the additions or colour which it receives in this country or that, in this class, in this school, or that.

Nor will any French divine, or German (though not , a convert), more than myself, criticize or reject the  'practical system'  (in the sense in which I have explained it)--nor is there anything which such a divine is disposed to criticize or abandon, which I should not be ready to do the like with, if I thought fit, myself, though a convert.

In reply, Pusey maintained that be had only quoted accredited books, and had only objected to doctrines and practices which he thought a Roman convert would be obliged to accept, although not formally de fide. He felt the personal attack which a writer in the Month had made on him, because Newman sometimes contributed to that paper; but from Roman Catholics in England he expected little, because they were so intent on making conversions.  'But I want,'  he adds,  'not to let the end of the Eirenicon sleep. I have been wondering whether you could draw up something which I might put before the English Church, as terms to offer.'  Newman counselled delay: he wanted to  'get up'  the book, and thought that Pusey should wait to see what his opponents had to say in reply.


Nov. 14, 1865.

In a word, you should have all the case before you. All this takes time, but in so great a step as you have taken, time must not be grudged. Did I write anything, it certainly would not be at once, but after I had seen what others said--nor could I write without a great deal of thought and of advice; and the advice at least I could not get in a moment.

Pusey' s only reason for hurrying was that he wished to get a hearing, before the Council, which aas expected in 1866, could affirm the Temporal Power or the Infallibility of the Pope to be de fide. Newman reminded Pusey that in an Allocution delivered on the Feast of the Annunciation in 1862, the Pope had declared the Temporal Power to be not a dogma of faith but a necessity of the time, and assured him that there was no fear of Papal Infallibility, except in so limited a form as practically to Leave things as they were.


Nov. 17, 1865.

...  It is Impossible that there would not be the most careful con–ditions determining what is ex-cathedra, and it would add very little to the present received belief.... Have you thought of Mgr. Dupanloup? He (entre nous) was gravely opposed to the issuing of the Syllabus, &c., and much disconcerted at its appearance. Don' t repeat it, but he said,  'If we can tide over the next ten years, we are safe.'  Perhaps you know him already. You should have seen Père Gratry in Paris; I mean, he was a man to see.

Two days later Newman wrote in a yet more friendly way.


The Oratory, Birmingham, Nov. 19, 1865.

... I am much surprised and much rejoiced to see yesterday' s article on your book in the Weekly Register. I hope you will like it. I have not a dream who wrote it.

If they rat next week, it will be very provoking. I am not easy about it, for not long ago they would not insert a review of a book because it was not according to Ward, who is according to Manning, who is according to the Pope. But this review, though not against the mind of the Pope, is certainly contrary against Ward and Manning.

It has surprised me so much that I said to myself, Is it possible that Manning himself has changed? He is so close, that no one can know.

On the other hand, I know some, if not most, of our bishops are against the Dublin and it really looks as if they were taking up the matter, and that we should have some permanent change in the Register.

I am sure you should not be in a hurry in what you propose to do.

This review in the Weekly Register was by Father Lock–hart. With some diffidence and all deference to higher authority, he suggested that Reunion on the lines mentioned by Pusey was better than perpetuated schism. In reply, Pusey wrote to thank the editor, and reaffirmed his convic–tions ,that the great body of the faith was held alike by both, and that the Council of Trent demanded nothing which could not be explained to the satisfaction of English Churchmen, if explained authoritatively. As regards the Supremacy he said,  'We readily recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome; the bearings of that Primacy on other local churches, we believe to be a matter of ecclesiastical, not of Divine law; but neither is there anything in the Supremacy in itself to which we should object.'

Both these statements were severely criticized. The former was said to go even beyond the statements for which Mr. W. G. Ward had been deprived of his degree and others had been suspended by their Bishops. Pusey wrote a second letter to the Weekly Register, dated December 6, 1865, in which he pointed out that he did not claim as did Ward, to hold all Roman doctrine, because that would include the popular system as well as what is formally de fide, and would also imply the acceptance of doctrine on the sole authority of Rome. He explained what he intended as follows:--

 'On comparing my belief with that expressed by the Council of Trent, I thought that its terms, as explained by some individual doctors, yet of authority among you, did not condemn what I believed, and did not require me to believe what I did not believe. I thought that the Council of Trent so explained for the Church of England, might be a basis of union. If I may sum up briefly, I think that not only on the whole range of doctrine, on the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation, but also on Original Sin and Justification, and all the doctrines of grace, there is nothing to be explained; that on the Canon of Scripture, the Holy Eucharist, and the Anointing of the sick, there is what has to be mutually explained; that on what I suppose you will account points of lesser magnitude, as those alluded to in our XXII Article, there will be need not only of explanation, but of limitation, what is to be de fide.'

His words about the Supremacy gave great offence even to his friends. But he explained in the letter just quoted that the Supremacy, as defined by the Council of Florence, was very vague and does not necessarily involve the appointment of Bishops, the sanction of Canons or the carrying of all appeals to Rome.

Lockhart' s review was apparently severely handled by his superiors: Pusey heard that Archbishop Manning had bidden him to write on the other side and to set forth the difficulties of Reunion; and another letter which Pusey received from a Roman Catholic alluded to the treatment of Lockhart as a  'fierce tyranny which would hinder'  an expression such as his, and which calls to account every one who would venture to steer clear of Ultra-isms.'

Pusey sent the correspondence to Keble, who replied as follows:


B[ournemouth], Nov. 24, 1865.

I am very thankful for the particulars that seem to be coming out as to the way in which R. C.' s receive your book. And J. H. N., as I had hoped, is coming round. How strange it is that he should entirely forget your having written entirely on the defensive: as though you had been challenging H. B. M. and not replying to his challenge. But one can see that he is not altogether easy in his position. And all the world can see that at any rate Rome has now no special right to twit us with our unhappy divisions.

It will be noticed that Newman did not at first feel called upon to publish anything in answer to the Eirenicon, at any rate for some time; but for several reasons he was induced to change his mind. The question of Reunion'  was at that moment before the Roman authorities .both in England and Rome. The Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom had addressed a letter to Cardinal Patrizzi early in the same year, and the reply to it had been decided on at Rome at this time. This was now expected in England, and was, as we know, hostile to the Association, which had fallen under the grave dis–pleasure of Dr. Manning. Newman' s name had also been connected with the Eirenicon through the correspondence in the Weekly Register. Dr. Manning moreover had just become Archbishop Of Westminster in succession to Cardinal Wiseman, and it may well have been that Newman considered that silence on his part might be misinterpreted, especially in the peculiar relations in which he stood to the new Roman Archbishop. Early in December he wrote to tell Pusey that he was preparing an answer.


                             The Oratory, Birmingham, In fest. Concept. Immac.

                                                                                       [Dec. 8.] 1865.

You must not be made anxious that I am going to publish a letter on your Irenicon. I wish to accept it as such, and shall write in that spirit. And I write, if not to hinder, for that is not in my power, but to balance and neutralize other things which may be written upon it. It will not be any great length. If I shall say anything which is in the way of remonstrance, it will be, because unless I were perfectly honest, I should not only do no good, but carry no one with me: but I am taking the greatest possible pains not to say a word which I should be sorry for afterwards.

I hope you found nothing to annoy you in Lockhart' s second article.

Pusey' s reply gives some idea of what he had to pass through at the time.


Christ Church, Oxford [Dec. 9, 1865].

As you said of me [with regard to the re-issue of Tract XC], I am safe in your hands. This discussion is taking too wide a range, for me to wish you to be silent. As for me, I am in a moral Bay of Biscay. I have no idea, when I wake, what the post will bring me. One day I have an assurance that Bishops, whom I did not dare hope it of, have recommended and expressed their satisfaction as to the Eirenicon. Then come those two letters of A. Gurney' s (alas! an Universalist); then the Globe says,-either my degree ought to be taken from me, or Ward' s restored. I do not know which he wishes. Then I see a kindly review of me from Dr. Guthrie, a Presbyterian. Then Lockhart presses me not to say that I do not believe the Supremacy to be of Divine right; and some of my friends, urging that John Bull will be mad about the Supremacy and pressing me to say something: you blame what I have said about the system as to the Blessed Virgin; some blame me, as if in my letter to the Weekly Register I have retracted it.

I do not expect any personal attack except in the papers. What alone I apprehend is any Protestant demonstration which shall check things or discourage your people. Else things work on more hopefully. If the leaven works on undisturbed, and people pray, all will be well. It was curious to see a Birmingham paper owning that the project of reunion  'really seems to have attracted more attention than would be thought possible by those unacquainted with current Theological literature.'

I am going to France again, to see some whom I had not seen before; but I shall not go unless there be some lull. If the wind does not .rise hither, what there has been will only prove a favourable breeze.

Newman only remarks on the mass of criticisms which Pusey had mentioned-- 'Don' t be persuaded by Lockhart to meddle with the question of the Pope' s jurisdiction. He either has it by Divine right or has not--and the conse–quences are serious either way.'

A long  'philosophic and very candid'  review in the Times of December 12, the day on which the reissue of Tract XC appeared, spoke favourably of the Eirenicon, and evidently saved Pusey from a good deal of trouble.


Christ Church, Oxford [Dec. 15, 1865].

What a time of railroad speed we live in! One seems to live years in weeks. That five-columned respectful review of the Eirenicon in the Times, seemed to me to betoken (1) that there would be no Protestant reclamation, else the Times would not have committed itself; (2) that the proposal for union was making an impression, else the Times would not have troubled itself; (3) that it meant quietly to put a wet blanket upon it. So I discharged another letter to the Times which it courteously put in, in big print.

On Tuesday morning I hope to sail for France and see more Bishops.

Pusey started again for France on Tuesday, December 19, having been carefully advised by a friend of Newman' s as to the best course to follow. At Paris he had another interview with the Archbishop, and saw some others, including Père Gratry,  'who received me most lovingly,'  and the Bishop of La Rochelle.  The next day he went to Orleans and saw Mgr. Dupanloup; on December 22, he went on to Marseilles. He stayed there a week, working at a University sermon for January 28, at some examination papers, and at the Commentary on Nahum. On Decem–ber 30, he went to Biarritz, and on January 3 and 4, 1866, he had two long interviews with the Bishop. On January 10, he writes to a Cambridge friend who was having the Eirenicon translated for foreign circulation.


[Pau, January 10, 1866.]

I have had three very happy interviews. I do not like to name names, but one very eminent Theologian ended a discussion of one and a half or two hours in which I spoke freely, with the kiss of peace, owning me as a true brother; and an Archbishop, whom I had not before seen, did the same twice, after my asking for and having his benediction. A good priest, to whom he introduced me as a Catholic, rather opened his eyes, to know whether I had been actually received.

On January 13, he is at Bordeaux, going to dine with the Archbishop, and to  'talk with him as long as I like.'  He returned through Paris, reaching Oxford on January 18.

The only frill account of this visit was sent to the Bishop of Brechin: generally he speaks of it as  'deeply interesting,'  and  'theologically more satisfactory than the other.'  He gave a few details in a speech at an English Church Union meeting on June 13.

 'I assure you that people in England will be extremely astonished if I am able to show (as I hope soon to do) how much that is popularly supposed to be de fide with Roman Catholics is not de fide with them. I will only give one instance. I saw a theologian, and one of the most eminent. We talked for two hours about the Council of Trent, and about our belief as it is expressed by those whom we considered to be the most genuine sons of the Church of England. The result was that point after point he was satisfied; and the interview ended in his saying,  " I shall salute you as a true brother." As to Supremacy he said,  " I do not know where it is to be found stated in what the Supremacy consists in." It has been said that I have lived so much among old books that I do not know that the modern practice is very different from what I had gathered from those old books. As regards Appeals to Rome, which formed so large a portion of the quarrel at the Reformation, this theologian told me that there is now scarcely such a thing known as an Appeal. He stated that those things which the Church of England disclaimed were no essential parts of the Supremacy; and I may add that a very eminent French theologian said to me,  " If other matters are settled, the Supremacy will make no difficulty.”... He left me saying,  " This does not touch our con–sciences; if other matters were settled, the question of the Supremacy could be easily arranged by a concordat.”'

In France, at any rate, Pusey had no difficulty in winning a sympathetic and appreciative hearing from leading theologians.


Project Canterbury